The money hasn't gone anywhere. It never existed. It was just promises, from rich people who don't have any money, they just have control over you. And as the promises grow bigger more outrageous, they become more transparent. This is an animation of the old bankers tale, which has become very popular on u-tube, also available on DVD:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

Start with "what is money"?

Going back a couple hundred years money was "stuff" of fixed quantity. Gold, silver, and the like. The problem with that was that although in that case the amount of money that existed was constant, what it was worth in terms of the real things we buy and sell for money could swing wildly according to the state of the economy. Remember, if the economy is too large to be valued in terms of this "real" money (or too small) then the associated values are just as fictitious as with paper money.

So gradually fiat money was introduced, still physical (pieces of paper, coins of base metal standing in, etc.). Supposedly convertable, but given the size of the society and total valuation of its goods, not really. So the convertability was abandoned AND the amount no longer even physical pieces of paper but "reserve rates".

That's right, how much money there IS depends on what percentage of deposits banks are required to keep as reserves. How much money (of this "new" sort, the kind that has been around all the lives of most of us) depends on the state of the economy. This doesn't prevent all the ups and downs but does allow adjustments to try to keep the amount in synch with the needs of the economy and so prevent THOSE sorts of ups and downs (when gold got out of synch).

If the economy slows down there is less money in existence. Most of the money exists only in circulation, in movement. Ever played "musical chairs"? Think of this as a game of musical chairs where the music never stops so the fact that many more people than chairs not a problem.

Say that there is X amount printed (physical paper, notes uttered, etc.) and the reserve rate is 50%. Then there would be 2X in circulation. Say 100 is deposited in a bank, they hold 50 in reserve and loan out 50. But that 50 gets deposited in some bank so 25 kept in reserve and 25 loaned out, that 25 gets deposited in some bank so 12.50 kept in reserve and 12.50 loaned out ............ the net result is ~200 of money. But what happens if the economy grinds to a standstill; nobody borrowing, spending, and who gets that depositing it in some bank. The whole show grinds to a halt and back down to X. Half the money disappeared, evaporated (it doesn't exist in a STATIC state.

We havn't actually "spent" the money. Most of it is there as a guarantee against debt.

Secondly, if like me you bought shares at the bottom of the crash you would of made a decent profit.... nothing complex: buy low / sell high. Buy when everyone is screaming about it being the end of capitalism, and sell when everyone thinks the economy is running sky high.

That is what the taxpayer has been forced into; so it isnt actually a bad deal in the long run. RBS will recover (I grant you there is a risk) but lets be realistic. The taxpayer will be sitting on a tidy profit. It will probably put a huge mend on the natural pension blackhole that a future government is going to have to deal with.

Cashflow is the issue and thats why there are cuts. We could of carried on like labour but we'd be running an inflation similar to Zimbabwe in the long run. Face it - cheap credit ran out - we had life nice and easy on it, and now its time to pay the bills.

Also, $9 million isnt much considering the size of these companies and how much money they are dealing with in a year. Its like trying to act hardball with Tate and Lyle over an order for sugar, and then realising the figures you are talking about are probably less than what they sweep off the factory floor at the end of each day. Compare that figure to your average A-list celebrity.

Nice info graphics by the way, great example of how simplicity and impact tells a story.
Compared to the average bullet point powerpoint presentation i have to sit through, they are excellent.

2) You are pointing out the the wealthy have more money than the poor?
This is ALWAYS going to be the case. It will be impossible for the poor to have more money than the wealthy. Or indeed, the poor to have the same amount of money as the wealthy.
Otherwise they wouldn't be poor and wealthy!!!

I think it is highly unlikely that everyone in the country will have the same amount of wealth.
One man would invest all his money in a business, another will piss it all up the wall at the pub.
For this reason, you will always be a separation and you will generally find that the:
poor = gamblers / alcoholics / work-shy / unambitious
rich = business men / self employed / investors / work-aholics.

3) You are stating that a head of a blue-chip bank on the world stage is earning more than a carer? Again, i would hardly imagine they earn the same.

"if like me you bought shares at the bottom of the crash you would of made a decent profit"
And where would I have got the money to by the shares? I'm on a carer's allowance - once I've paid the food, money lenders, heating and rent (in that order) there's nothing left. In many months, I'm in debt before I've paid my bills.

"cheap credit ran out"
It was never there for me. Banks would not lend me money. When my family and friends couldn't help me, I used Money Exchange (when I could). If that didn't work, I used the local money lenders. Neither is cheap, but needs must when the devil drives.

"Also, $9 million isnt much"
What world are you in!? £9 million would see me and my son through until the end of both our lives. Instead, I do my best from the £40.12 I get per week from the carers allowance (reduced from the full amount cos I get other benefits that are deducted).

I am lucky. I have a son who I love very much. And I have family and friends that support me. We'll get through. But all of these cuts scare me. I am very worried that other people know caring for a disabled child will not be so lucky. What will happen to them? And who cares?

No, I was not trying to point out that the poor are wealthier than the rich. That would just be tautological. I was trying to point of the magnitude of the difference, which seems to keep on growing.

You seem to say that people are poor because they are alcoholics, gamblers, etc? Evidence please. I though my graphic might have suggested some people are poor because they are caring for others. Does this mean they fall into the categories you suggest? Again, please give evidence.

Finally, people in blue chip companies - are you talking about the same companies that have had hundreds of billions in bale outs? Why are they worth so much public funding when people that are caring for other people are worth so little are worth so less?

I suspect I should not have written such a long response, since you are clearly trolling.

Capitalists don't want your money. Try paying your utility bill in bank notes. The utilities own debt collection system probably won't take it. They want you on Direct Debit. They want direct access to, what you get for your working. Effectively they want to enslave you. They want you to be forced to work for their benefit. That's what capitalism is; enslavement. A wealthy man is a man who has more slaves. Remember 'capita' is the latin word for 'head'. The capitalist has a head of slaves.

Society (sociarchy) has allowed its self to become dependent on the government/banking class: the so called capitalist class. But capitalism isn't unique to that, upper, class. It is a part of societies very nature. People always want to be able to control other peoples labour, even socialists!

If any one is unhappy with the banking government system, you've got to ask is it because they just want more for themselves or do they see the inherent immorality of slavery.

"Capitalists don't want your money. Try paying your utility bill in bank notes....."

um, they're usually happy to accept bank notes. i have been paying utility bills with cash for many years, and haven't had a problem yet.

your theories and arguments would be more persuasive if you avoided this kind of untruth/ over-exxageration.

No wonder you're anon

"You are stating that a head of a blue-chip bank on the world stage is earning more than a carer? Again, i would hardly imagine they earn the same"

The difference is that the carer is doing a difficult, stressful and essential job under severe pressure, not least that of sneering from people like you. She is a contributor, a person of greatv value and obvious fortitude.

The "head of a blue-ship bank on the world stage", on the other hand, is just a parasitic gangster, low-life scum we would be better off rid of. He does great harm to numerous people he's never met and probably can't even conceive what it would be like to be a contributor instead of a thief.

Direct Debit customers, paying a monthly estimated electricity bill, get a discount. The offices of the local electricity boards, as there wore before privatisation, where you could pay your bill over the counter, closed long ago. If you must pay by cash, at a Pay Point (debt collection agent) you will pay more. Try going to e-on head office in Dusseldorf, with cash. Maybe Tony Crocker would come down and thank you personally for your prompt payment!

Is this theory exaggerated, really?

They don't know you. They don't give a fuck about you. But they want to get a handle on you. Everyone dose, even your nice friendly landlord, who fixes the leaky roof. He doesn't do repairs because he cares about you welfare, he's protecting his future income. It's not the money now, that they want. It's control of you in future.

This message was sent to you from planet Zog.

"Direct Debit customers, paying a monthly estimated electricity bill, get a discount. The offices of the local electricity boards, as there wore before privatisation, where you could pay your bill over the counter, closed long ago. If you must pay by cash, at a Pay Point (debt collection agent) you will pay more. Try going to e-on head office in Dusseldorf, with cash. Maybe Tony Crocker would come down and thank you personally for your prompt payment! "

Lol, you clearly havn't worked in business before!!!!!!

They prefer direct debit for two reasons:
1) It ensures that you pay at predefined time and never forgot. This makes running their business a lot easier because they can predict their cashflow a lot more accurately. Having a predictable cashflow month from month means you can run at tighter margins, borrow less from the bank and have cheaper overheads

2) They will need to send out a lot less reminders and will have a lot less defaults on payments because people are generally useless at paying bills on time until they have been threatened with a penalty. Thats just human behaviour. Again, this means cheaper overheads.

So, the real reason they offer a discount on Direct Debits, is that it saves them a lot of money. Their incentive to the customer to do Direct Debit is to pass on some of this saving as a discount. Its nothing about control and is a win-win situation because as a customer you are not paying for staff to chase late payers.


I used to do the exact same thing when i ran a business. Clients always paid late and i wasted a lot of time (and money) chasing them up, as well as causing a lot of unpredictable cashflow problems. So, i did what everyone else did, I offered a 2-5% discount if they paid within 14 days. Since it is usually someone's job to save the company as much money as possible, they would almost always take it. That 5% was usually less than the loss in hassle it would cost me, and I just added it to the initial quote anyway!

And. that my friend, is how the real world works in planet Earth.

>>> The difference is that the carer is doing a difficult, stressful and essential job under severe pressure, not least that of sneering from people like you. She is a contributor, a person of greatv value and obvious fortitude. The "head of a blue-ship bank on the world stage", on the other hand, is just a parasitic gangster, low-life scum we would be better off rid of. He does great harm to numerous people he's never met and probably can't even conceive what it would be like to be a contributor instead of a thief.

In your opinion. I think they are both probably doing stressful jobs. We are all doing stressful jobs. You can hardly blame the banks for how much carers are paid. Thats like blaming a postman for how much a milkman is paid. Its totally ridiculous. A banker doesn't have anything to do with a carer.

As to low-life scum...... You could say that about anyone. Yes really.......
We seem to foster this idea that we are a caring country which is utter tripe. We have to threaten the "caring" tax payers with imprisonment because they are willing to "share" their wealth with the needy. Doesn't sound like a caring lot to me.

Stop using the bankers as a scapegoat. I can't remember the last time i heard of a poor, working class person who suddenly won the lottery give it all away to the needy.

People are people. WHen they get a big pile of cash, they will hold onto it - banker or not.

And what is being called anon got to do with anything!? Is that the best you can do?

> People are people.
Thanks for the insight.Couldn't have managed to work that out myself.

> WHen they get a big pile of cash, they will hold onto it - banker or not.
You might (depressingly) be correct. But that does not justify why the public are giving the bankers the big pile of cash that they are holding on to. What is you reason for giving them, the bankers, this pile of cash whilst paying carers such a pittance?

> People are people.
> Thanks for the insight.Couldn't have managed to work that out myself.

I think you've kinda quote-mined that a bit - it is called a "laconic phrase".
As its gone over your head, that point is that to expect people not to act like people is wishful thinking at best and foolish at worse.

> WHen they get a big pile of cash, they will hold onto it - banker or not.
> You might (depressingly) be correct.

Of course.... Take a 100 poor people who suddenly win the lottery, how many are going to give all that money to the poor and needy? 75%? 50%? 10%?..........
Actually, you don't have to guess because it has never happened to the best of my knowledge (I stand to be corrected, but even so - the pattern is firmly set).

> But that does not justify why the public are giving the bankers the big pile of cash that they are holding on to. What is you reason for giving them, the bankers, this pile of cash whilst paying carers such a pittance?

To be honest - I wouldn't blame the bankers too much in regard to the big taxpayer bailout
Labour has been very, very sneaky in making the bankers the scapegoats in all this to draw attention from themselves........
I'm not taking the piss, bare with me :)

1. Banks operate within the law (by the large, sure there are exceptions - but they are just that - exceptions. You will find exceptions in pretty much everything in life so don't go on about "what about such and such").

2. Banks compete on the open market with each other. In order to survive they have to be competitive with other banks.

3. To be competitive, a bank must take risks. Failure to take risks means that the bank won't compete and will die because customers will flock to the banks that do take risks and offer better deals.

4. Governments make the rules (The Law), not banks. These rules define what risks banks are allowed to take and not take. Banks will operate within the confines of the law that the government has set.

5. For banks: Safe = fail. If they play it too safe, then they are guaranteed to fail.
They have to take risks to survive because all the other banks are and so can offer their customers better deals on mortgages etc.

6. Therefore, the government is directly in control of how much risk the banks take.
They are the ones who decide.

If the government had their eye on the ball and made the rules better then the sub-price and over-lending issues would not have happened - they could of been avoided because that was in the power of the government. This is due to the governments policy of free markets.

You can virtually prove this as Gordon Brown said that he predicted that this was going to happen way back in the 90s. So.............. being in charge........... WHY DIDN'T HE DO SOMETHING TO PREVENT IT !?!?!?

For analogy, its like a referee at a boxing match. If he allows the fighters to fight dirty then they will (the fighter who refuses to will almost certainly lose - so they have little choice in the matter). It is up to the ref to set the rules and enforce them - thats his job.

You have got to be very careful, the governent has made the banks appear as the scapegoats in this to divert attention from themselves making a massive cockup of the rules of how the markets can operate.

Remember: They are the ones that set the rules as to how the banks are allowed to operate.
Banks operate within the confines of those rules.

As to carers..... yes they 'deserve' more, but unfortunately deserve and fairness isn't how the world works. It works on necessity. We need banks otherwise business will fail (how else would a business survive the bumps of the economy?). And without businesses we would find that our 60+ million population who rely on imported food products would be facing a famine, have massive shortages in fuel and would return to the dark ages.

It all comes down to what the tax payers are will to pay their taxes on. Most people don't want to spend money on taxes at all. We only do so because we are threatened with prison.
If you want carers to earn more then you will need to pry more money of the tax payers.